Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 31 October 2019 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F235120818; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7BYgdzfPXSd; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9514A120145; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x9VLQ9gt015885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:26:11 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:09 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20191031212609.GN88302@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157185231724.28314.17849634169462380907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmU8wWNHNH3d5ea2S6QF4Farz57Hip_s_jfsXveHngo_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU8wWNHNH3d5ea2S6QF4Farz57Hip_s_jfsXveHngo_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Ls8Qb2aly5g7XL31rMVT7rXuqgo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 21:26:21 -0000

Hi Greg,

That seems much more clear; thanks!

-Ben

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:03:00PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> thank you for the comments. We'll continue working with the RFC Editor to
> improve the text.
> To address two other comments we propose updates as below in-line under the
> tag GIM>>.
> Also, attached are the working new version with the updates and the diff to
> -09 version.
> Please let us know if these updates are acceptable and address your
> comments.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:38 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> 
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thank you for addressing my Discuss points!
> >
> > A few final comments on the -09, though I don't think any response is
> > needed
> > for any of them:
> >
> > There's still some editing for grammar to do, but I will trust in the RFC
> > Editor
> > for that.
> >
> > Section 4.2's use of RFC 6038 as a reference for "the symmetrical size of
> > test packets"
> > with no section reference is a bit surprising, though perhaps not
> > objectionable.
> >
> GIM>> Formats of TWAMP symmetrical packet and STAMP base packet have minor
> differences. Thus we add a reference to Section 3 of RFC 6038 where the
> Symmetrical Size capability is defined.
> 
> >
> > Section 4.6 has changed the discussion of reflected packet size in
> > STAMP/TWAMP
> > interop scenarios, from "STAMP Session-Reflector will use a symmetric size"
> > to "STAMP Session-Reflector will always transmit the base packet (i.e.,
> > not a
> > symmetric size)".  I will trust you that this is accurate, since I cannot
> > confirm it myself.
> >
> GIM>> Propose the following update to the last paragraph in Section 4.6:
> OLD TEXT:
>    A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification would
>    transmit the base packet (Figure 5) regardless of the size of the
>    Padding field in the packet received from TWAMP Session-Sender.
>    Also, STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability defined in
>    [RFC6038].  If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP
>    Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the
>    content starting from the Server Octets field and will transmit the
>    reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 5.
> NEW TEXT:
>    A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will
>    transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet smaller
>    than the STAMP base packet.  If the packet received from TWAMP
>    Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP
>    Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the
>    content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit reflected
>    packet of symmetrical size.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Network Working Group                                          G. Mirsky
> Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
> Intended status: Standards Track                                  G. Jun
> Expires: April 30, 2020                                  ZTE Corporation
>                                                                H. Nydell
>                                                        Accedian Networks
>                                                                 R. Foote
>                                                                    Nokia
>                                                         October 28, 2019
> 
> 
>                Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
>                         draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
>    which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip
>    performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
> 
> Status of This Memo
> 
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
>    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
>    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
>    This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2020.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
>    document authors.  All rights reserved.
> 
>    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
>    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
>    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
>    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
>    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 1]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
>    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
>    described in the Simplified BSD License.
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
>    2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>      2.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>      2.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    3.  Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on
>        STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    4.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
>      4.1.  UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>      4.2.  Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . .   5
>        4.2.1.  Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode    5
>        4.2.2.  Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode  .   7
>      4.3.  Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format  . . . . . .   8
>        4.3.1.  Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated
>                Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
>        4.3.2.  Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode  10
>      4.4.  Integrity Protection in STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
>      4.5.  Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . . . . . . . .  12
>      4.6.  Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
>    5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>    6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>    7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
>    8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
>    9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
>      9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
>      9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
>    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    Development and deployment of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>    (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined
>    Symmetrical Size for TWAMP, provided invaluable experience.  Several
>    independent implementations of both TWAMP and TWAMP Light exist, have
>    been deployed, and provide important operational performance
>    measurements.
> 
>    At the same time, there has been noticeable interest in using a more
>    straightforward mechanism for active performance monitoring that can
>    provide deterministic behavior and inherent separation of control
>    (vendor-specific configuration or orchestration) and test functions.
>    Recent work on IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from
>    Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] demonstrated that interoperability among
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 2]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    implementations of TWAMP Light is difficult because the composition
>    and operation of TWAMP Light were not sufficiently specified in
>    [RFC5357].  According to [RFC8545], TWAMP Light includes a sub-set of
>    TWAMP-Test functions.  Thus, to have a comprehensive tool to measure
>    packet loss and delay requires support by other applications that
>    provide, for example, control and security.
> 
>    This document defines an active performance measurement test
>    protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), that
>    enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance
>    metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.  Some TWAMP
>    extensions, e.g., [RFC7750] are supported by the extensions to STAMP
>    base specification in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].
> 
> 2.  Conventions used in this document
> 
> 2.1.  Terminology
> 
>    STAMP - Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
> 
>    NTP - Network Time Protocol
> 
>    PTP - Precision Time Protocol
> 
>    HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code
> 
>    OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
> 
>    TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
> 
>    MBZ Must be Zero
> 
> 2.2.  Requirements Language
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
>    14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
>    capitals, as shown here.
> 
> 3.  Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on STAMP
> 
>    Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
>    (STAMP) Session-Sender, and Session-Reflector with a measurement
>    session.  In this document, a measurement session also referred to as
>    STAMP session, is the bi-directional packet flow between one specific
>    Session-Sender and one particular Session-Reflector for a time
>    duration.  The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 3]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    Sender, Session-Reflector, and management of the STAMP sessions are
>    outside the scope of this document and can be achieved through
>    various means.  A few examples are:  Command Line Interface,
>    telecommunication services' OSS/BSS systems, SNMP, and Netconf/YANG-
>    based SDN controllers.
> 
> 
>          o----------------------------------------------------------o
>          |                      Configuration and                   |
>          |                         Management                       |
>          o----------------------------------------------------------o
>                 ||                                          ||
>                 ||                                          ||
>                 ||                                          ||
>      +----------------------+                +-------------------------+
>      | STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector |
>      +----------------------+                +-------------------------+
> 
> 
>                       Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model
> 
> 4.  Theory of Operation
> 
>    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport toward
>    STAMP Session-Reflector.  STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-
>    Sender's packet and acts according to the configuration.  Two modes
>    of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected behavior and,
>    consequently, performance metrics that can be measured:
> 
>    o  Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state
>       and will use the value in the Sequence Number field in the
>       received packet as the value for the Sequence Number field in the
>       reflected packet.  As a result, values in Sequence Number and
>       Session-Sender Sequence Number fields are the same, and only
>       round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is
>       operating in stateless mode.
> 
>    o  Stateful - STAMP Session-Reflector maintains test state thus
>       enabling the ability to determine forward loss, gaps recognized in
>       the received sequence number.  As a result, both near-end
>       (forward) and far-end (backward) packet loss can be computed.
>       That implies that the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST keep a state
>       for each configured STAMP-test session, uniquely identifying
>       STAMP-test packets to one such session instance, and enabling
>       adding a sequence number in the test reply that is individually
>       incremented on a per-session basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 4]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    STAMP supports two authentication modes: unauthenticated and
>    authenticated.  Unauthenticated STAMP test packets, defined in
>    Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.3.1, ensure interworking between STAMP
>    and TWAMP Light as described in Section 4.6 packet formats.
> 
>    By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet
>    transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet
>    received by the Session-Reflector.
> 
> 4.1.  UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing
> 
>    A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port 862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver
>    Port) as the default destination UDP port number.  A STAMP
>    implementation of Session-Sender MUST be able to use as the
>    destination UDP port numbers from User, a.k.a.  Registered, Ports and
>    Dynamic, a.k.a.  Private or Ephemeral, Ports ranges defined in
>    [RFC6335].  Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the
>    possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed
>    by all users of the network domain where the test has been planned.
> 
>    An implementation of STAMP Session-Reflector by default MUST receive
>    STAMP test packets on UDP port 862.  An implementation of Session-
>    Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define the
>    port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and Dynamic
>    Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335].  STAMP defines two
>    different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the
>    STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the STAMP-
>    Session-Reflector.
> 
> 4.2.  Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format
> 
>    A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test
>    packets, as defined in Section 3 [RFC6038], as the default behavior.
>    A reflected test packet includes more information and thus is larger.
>    Because of that, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded to
>    match the size of a reflected STAMP test packet.  Hence, the base
>    STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in
>    unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the
>    authenticated mode, see Figure 4.  The variable length of a test
>    packet in STAMP is supported by using Extra Padding TLV defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].
> 
> 4.2.1.  Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
> 
>    STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 5]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>        0                   1                   2                   3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        Sequence Number                        |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                          Timestamp                            |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |         Error Estimate        |                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                      Reserved (30 octets)                     |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>    Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated
>                                    mode
> 
>    where fields are defined as the following:
> 
>    o  Sequence Number is four octets long field.  For each new session
>       its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted
>       packet.
> 
>    o  Timestamp is eight octets long field.  STAMP node MUST support
>       Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format
>       [RFC5905], the format used in [RFC5357].  STAMP node MAY support
>       IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) truncated 64-bit
>       timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008], the format used in [RFC8186].
>       The use of the specific format, NTP or PTP, is part of
>       configuration of the Session-Sender or the particular test
>       session.
> 
>    o  Error Estimate is two octets long field with format displayed in
>       Figure 3
> 
>             0                   1
>             0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>            |S|Z|   Scale   |   Multiplier  |
>            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>                       Figure 3: Error Estimate Format
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 6]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>       where S, Scale, and Multiplier fields are interpreted as they have
>       been defined in section 4.1.2 [RFC4656]; and Z field - as has been
>       defined in section 2.3 [RFC8186]:
> 
>       *  0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp;
> 
>       *  1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp.
> 
>       The default behavior of the STAMP Session-Sender and Session-
>       Reflector is to use the NTP 64-bit timestamp format (Z field value
>       of 0) An operator, using configuration/management function, MAY
>       configure STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to using the
>       PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp (Z field value of 1).  Note,
>       that an implementation of a Session-Sender that supports this
>       specification MAY be configured to use PTPv2 format of a timestamp
>       even though the Session-Reflector is configured to use NTP format.
> 
>    o  Reserved field in the Session-Sender unauthenticated packet is 30
>       octets long.  It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and MUST
>       be ignored on receipt.
> 
> 4.2.2.  Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
> 
>    STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 7]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>      0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                      Sequence Number                          |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                                                               |
>     |                      MBZ (12 octets)                          |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                        Timestamp                              |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |        Error Estimate         |                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
>     ~                                                               ~
>     |                         MBZ (70 octets)                       |
>     ~                                                               ~
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                                                               |
>     |                       HMAC (16 octets)                        |
>     |                                                               |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>     Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated
>                                    mode
> 
>    The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
>    listed in Section 4.2.1.  Also, Must-Be-Zero (MBZ) fields are used to
>    to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets.  The value of the
>    field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
>    Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate a key-hashed message
>    authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash.  Also, the packet
>    includes HMAC hash at the end of the PDU.  The detailed use of the
>    HMAC field is described in Section 4.4.
> 
> 4.3.  Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format
> 
>    The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet and verifies it.
>    If the base STAMP test packet validated, the Session-Reflector, that
>    supports this specification, prepares and transmits the reflected
>    test packet symmetric to the packet received from the Session-Sender
>    copying the content beyond the size of the base STAMP packet (see
>    Section 4.2).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 8]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
> 4.3.1.  Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
> 
>    For unauthenticated mode:
> 
>      0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                        Sequence Number                        |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                          Timestamp                            |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |         Error Estimate        |           MBZ                 |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                          Receive Timestamp                    |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                 Session-Sender Sequence Number                |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                  Session-Sender Timestamp                     |
>     |                                                               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     | Session-Sender Error Estimate |           MBZ                 |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |Ses-Sender TTL |                   Reserved                    |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>           Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in
>                            unauthenticated mode
> 
>    where fields are defined as the following:
> 
>    o  Sequence Number is four octets long field.  The value of the
>       Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP
>       Session-Reflector:
> 
>       *  in the stateless mode, the Session-Reflector copies the value
>          from the received STAMP test packet's Sequence Number field;
> 
>       *  in the stateful mode, the Session-Reflector counts the
>          transmitted STAMP test packets.  It starts with zero and is
>          incremented by one for each subsequent packet for each test
>          session.  The Session-Reflector uses that counter to set the
>          value of the Sequence Number field.
> 
>    o  Timestamp and Receive Timestamp fields are each eight octets long.
>       The format of these fields, NTP or PTPv2, indicated by the Z field
>       of the Error Estimate field as described in Section 4.2.  Receive
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 9]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>       Timestamp is the time the test packet was received by the Session-
>       Reflector.  Timestamp - the time taken by the Session-Reflector at
>       the start of transmitting the test packet.
> 
>    o  Error Estimate has the same size and interpretation as described
>       in Section 4.2.  It is applicable to both Timestamp and Receive
>       Timestamp.
> 
>    o  Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and
>       Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding
>       fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender.
> 
>    o  Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the
>       copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the
>       received STAMP test packet.
> 
>    o  MBZ is used to achieve alignment of fields within the packet on a
>       four octets boundary.  The value of the field MUST be zeroed on
>       transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
> 
>    o  Reserved field in the Session-Reflector unauthenticated packet is
>       three octets long.  It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and
>       MUST be ignored on receipt.
> 
> 4.3.2.  Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
> 
>    For the authenticated mode:
> 
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        Sequence Number                        |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        MBZ (12 octets)                        |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                          Timestamp                            |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |         Error Estimate        |                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
>       |                        MBZ (6 octets)                         |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        Receive Timestamp                      |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        MBZ (8 octets)                         |
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 10]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                 Session-Sender Sequence Number                |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        MBZ (12 octets)                        |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                 Session-Sender Timestamp                      |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       | Session-Sender Error Estimate |                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
>       |                        MBZ (6 octets)                         |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |Ses-Sender TTL |                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               +
>       |                                                               |
>       |                        MBZ (15 octets)                        |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        HMAC (16 octets)                       |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       |                                                               |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
>    Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated
>                                    mode
> 
>    The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
>    listed in Section 4.3.1.  Additionally, the MBZ field is used to to
>    make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets.  The value of the
>    field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
>    Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate HMAC hash value.  Also,
>    STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode
>    includes HMAC ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU.  The detailed
>    use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.4.
> 
> 4.4.  Integrity Protection in STAMP
> 
>    Authenticated mode provides integrity protection to each STAMP
>    message by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC).  STAMP
>    uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it
>    in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC field is
>    16 octets.  In the Authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first six
>    blocks (96 octets).  HMAC uses its own key that may be unique for
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 11]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    each STAMP test session; key management and the mechanisms to
>    distribute the HMAC key are outside the scope of this specification.
>    One example is to use an orchestrator to configure HMAC key based on
>    STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].  HMAC MUST be
>    verified as early as possible to avoid using or propagating corrupted
>    data.
> 
>    Future specifications may define the use of other, more advanced
>    cryptographic algorithms, possibly providing an update to the STAMP
>    YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].
> 
> 4.5.  Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
> 
>    If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, a STAMP test
>    session MUST use a secured transport.  For example, STAMP packets
>    could be transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec
>    tunnel with the monitored flow.  Also, Datagram Transport Layer
>    Security protocol would provide the desired confidentiality
>    protection.
> 
> 4.6.  Interoperability with TWAMP Light
> 
>    One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to
>    interwork with a TWAMP Light device.  Because STAMP and TWAMP use
>    different algorithms in Authenticated mode (HMAC-SHA-256 vs. HMAC-
>    SHA-1), interoperability is only considered for Unauthenticated mode.
>    There are two possible combinations for such use case:
> 
>    o  STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector;
> 
>    o  TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector.
> 
>    In the former case, the Session-Sender might not be aware that its
>    Session-Reflector does not support STAMP.  For example, a TWAMP Light
>    Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as
>    specified in [RFC8545].  Thus Section 4. permits a STAMP Session-
>    Sender to use alternative ports.  If any of STAMP extensions are
>    used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet
>    Padding field.
> 
>    In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not
>    support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set
>    STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by
>    Section 4.  The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default
>    format for its timestamps, NTP.
> 
>    A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will
>    transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet smaller
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 12]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    than the STAMP base packet.  If the packet received from TWAMP
>    Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP
>    Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the
>    content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit reflected
>    packet of symmetrical size.
> 
> 5.  Operational Considerations
> 
>    STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the
>    operator to assess service level agreements based on packet delay,
>    delay variation, and loss.  When using STAMP over the Internet,
>    especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the
>    destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the possible
>    impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed.  The
>    use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes hosting
>    the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector before starting the STAMP
>    test session.
> 
>    Also, the use of the well-known port number as the destination UDP
>    port number in STAMP test packets transmitted by a Session-Sender
>    would not impede the ability to measure performance in an Equal Cost
>    Multipath environment and analysis in Section 5.3 [RFC8545] fully
>    applies to STAMP.
> 
> 6.  IANA Considerations
> 
>    This document doesn't have any IANA action.  This section may be
>    removed before the publication.
> 
> 7.  Security Considerations
> 
>    [RFC5357] does not identify security considerations specific to
>    TWAMP-Test but refers to security considerations identified for OWAMP
>    in [RFC4656].  Since both OWAMP and TWAMP include control plane and
>    data plane components, only security considerations related to OWAMP-
>    Test, discussed in Sections 6.2, 6.3 [RFC4656] apply to STAMP.
> 
>    STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-
>    Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port.  Thus the security considerations and
>    measures to mitigate the risk of the attack using the registered port
>    number documented in Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP.
>    Because of the control and management of a STAMP test being outside
>    the scope of this specification only the more general requirement is
>    set:
> 
>       To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control, and
>       management of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 13]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>       The load of the STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be
>       carefully estimated, and the possible impact on the existing
>       services MUST be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test
>       session.  [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling
>       network load for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of
>       test traffic depends on the test objective, it is highly
>       recommended to stay in the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
> 
>    Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
>    integrity of the STAMP test packets.
> 
> 8.  Acknowledgments
> 
>    Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
>    and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and
>    identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions.
>    Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball and Rakesh Gandhi or their
>    thorough reviews and helpful comments.
> 
> 9.  References
> 
> 9.1.  Normative References
> 
>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
>               Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Jun, G., Nydell, H., Foote, R., and
>               A. Masputra, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
>               Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01
>               (work in progress), September 2019.
> 
>    [IEEE.1588.2008]
>               "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
>               for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
>               IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008.
> 
>    [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
>               Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>;.
> 
>    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>;.
> 
>    [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
>               Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
>               (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>;.
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 14]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
>               Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
>               RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>;.
> 
>    [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
>               "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
>               Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>;.
> 
>    [RFC6038]  Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement
>               Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size
>               Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>;.
> 
>    [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
>               Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>               Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
>               Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
>               RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>;.
> 
>    [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
>               2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
>               May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>;.
> 
>    [RFC8186]  Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588
>               Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>               (TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>;.
> 
>    [RFC8545]  Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port
>               Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>               (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>               (TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>;.
> 
> 9.2.  Informative References
> 
>    [BBF.TR-390]
>               "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer
>               Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.
> 
>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
>               Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
>               Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-
>               stamp-yang-05 (work in progress), October 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 15]
> 
> Internet-Draft                    STAMP                     October 2019
> 
> 
>    [RFC4868]  Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
>               384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>;.
> 
>    [RFC7750]  Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated
>               Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
>               Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>               (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>;.
> 
>    [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
>               Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
>               March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>;.
> 
> Authors' Addresses
> 
>    Greg Mirsky
>    ZTE Corp.
> 
>    Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
> 
> 
>    Guo Jun
>    ZTE Corporation
>    68# Zijinghua Road
>    Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
>    P.R.China
> 
>    Phone: +86 18105183663
>    Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
> 
> 
>    Henrik Nydell
>    Accedian Networks
> 
>    Email: hnydell@accedian.com
> 
> 
>    Richard Foote
>    Nokia
> 
>    Email: footer.foote@nokia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirsky, et al.           Expires April 30, 2020                [Page 16]

>                   < draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09.txt                                      draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10.txt >                  
>  Network Working Group G. Mirsky                                    Network Working Group G. Mirsky                                   
>  Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.                                           Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.                                          
>  Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun                            Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun                           
>  Expires: April 20, 2020 ZTE Corporation                            Expires: April 30, 2020 ZTE Corporation                           
>  H. Nydell                                                          H. Nydell                                                         
>  Accedian Networks                                                  Accedian Networks                                                 
>  R. Foote                                                           R. Foote                                                          
>  Nokia                                                              Nokia                                                             
>  October 18, 2019                                                   October 28, 2019                                                  
>  Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol                         Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol                        
>  draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09                                           draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10                                          
>  Abstract                                                           Abstract                                                          
>  This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement        This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement       
>  Protocol                                                           Protocol                                                          
>  which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip       which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip      
>  performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.  performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. 
>  Status of This Memo                                                Status of This Memo                                               
>  This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the      This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the     
>              skipping to change at page 1, line 37 P:                           skipping to change at page 1, line 37 P:              
>  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
>  Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute      Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute     
>  working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current          working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current         
>  Internet-                                                          Internet-                                                         
>  Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.         Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.        
>  Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six    
>  months                                                             months                                                            
>  and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at  
>  any                                                                any                                                               
>  time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference      time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference     
>  material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."         material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."        
>  This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2020.                 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2020.                
>  Copyright Notice                                                   Copyright Notice                                                  
>  Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the    Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   
>  document authors. All rights reserved.                             document authors. All rights reserved.                            
>  This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal      This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal     
>  Provisions Relating to IETF Documents                              Provisions Relating to IETF Documents                             
>  (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of  
>  publication of this document. Please review these documents        publication of this document. Please review these documents       
>              skipping to change at page 5, line 37 P:                           skipping to change at page 5, line 37 P:              
>  Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define  Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define 
>  the                                                                the                                                               
>  port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and      port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and     
>  Dynamic                                                            Dynamic                                                           
>  Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two      Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two     
>  different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the  different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the 
>  STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the        STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the       
>  STAMP-                                                             STAMP-                                                            
>  Session-Reflector.                                                 Session-Reflector.                                                
>  4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format                     4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format                    
>  A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test    A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test   
>  packets [RFC6038] as the default behavior. A reflected test        packets, as defined in Section 3 [RFC6038], as the default        
>  packet                                                             behavior.                                                         
>  includes more information and thus is larger. Because of that,     A reflected test packet includes more information and thus is     
>  the                                                                larger.                                                           
>  base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded to match the size of a  Because of that, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded   
>                                                                     to                                                                
>  reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base STAMP Session-Sender  match the size of a reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base  
>  packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode,    STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in    
>  see                                                               
>  Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4.  unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the         
>  The variable length of a test packet in STAMP is supported by      authenticated mode, see Figure 4. The variable length of a test   
>  using                                                             
>  Extra Padding TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].     packet in STAMP is supported by using Extra Padding TLV defined   
>                                                                     in                                                                
>                                                                     [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].                                 
>  4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode        4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode       
>  STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:        STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:       
>  0 1 2 3                                                            0 1 2 3                                                           
>  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   
>  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
>  | Sequence Number |                                                | Sequence Number |                                               
>  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
>              skipping to change at page 12, line 50 P:                          skipping to change at page 12, line 50 P:             
>  Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are    Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are   
>  used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet   used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet  
>  Padding field.                                                     Padding field.                                                    
>  In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not   In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not  
>  support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST   support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST  
>  set                                                                set                                                               
>  STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by    STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by   
>  Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default    Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default   
>  format for its timestamps, NTP.                                    format for its timestamps, NTP.                                   
>  A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification would   A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will   
>  transmit the base packet (Figure 5) regardless of the size of the  transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet       
>                                                                     smaller                                                           
>  Padding field in the packet received from TWAMP Session-Sender.    than the STAMP base packet. If the packet received from TWAMP     
>  Also, STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability         Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP    
>  defined in                                                        
>  [RFC6038]. If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP      Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the  
>  Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the   content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit       
>                                                                     reflected                                                         
>  content starting from the Server Octets field and will transmit    packet of symmetrical size.                                       
>  the                                                               
>  reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 5.                       
>  5. Operational Considerations                                      5. Operational Considerations                                     
>  STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the  STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the 
>  operator to assess service level agreements based on packet        operator to assess service level agreements based on packet       
>  delay,                                                             delay,                                                            
>  delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet,     delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet,    
>  especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the        especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the       
>  destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the         destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the        
>  possible                                                           possible                                                          
>  impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The  impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The 
>  use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes        use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes       
>  hosting                                                            hosting                                                           
>              skipping to change at page 15, line 51 P:                          skipping to change at page 15, line 51 P:             
>  9.2. Informative References                                        9.2. Informative References                                       
>  [BBF.TR-390]                                                       [BBF.TR-390]                                                      
>  "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer                  "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer                 
>  Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.                Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.               
>  [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]                                         [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]                                        
>  Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active           Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active          
>  Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-         Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-        
>  stamp-yang-04 (work in progress), September 2019.                  stamp-yang-05 (work in progress), October 2019.                   
>  [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256,           [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256,          
>  HMAC-SHA-                                                          HMAC-SHA-                                                         
>  384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,                       384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,                      
>  DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,                                    DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,                                   
>  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>;.                         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>;.                        
>  [RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon,               [RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon,              
>  "Differentiated                                                    "Differentiated                                                   
>  Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification            Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification           
>  Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol              Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol             
>  (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,           (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,          
>                                                    End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
>                     21 lines changed or deleted                                         21 lines changed or added                     
>         This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/